Many science experts have been predicting for years that nanotechnology is the next industrial revolution that we face. Estimates say that by 2014 there will be more than 2 Trillion dollars worth of goods manufactured and sold that incorporate nanotechnology. THis would be more than 200 times the 2004 reported level. Minute yet complex particles are made up of objects that are no larger than tubes or spheres a few atoms in length or diameter. These particles can be used for a variety of helpful functions, like transporting electricity through previously resistant materials or transporting drugs to particular damaged or infected cells. They also can be used for seemingly pedestrian purposes like helping cloth retain color or fabrics repel water, uses that translate into huge dollars when incorporated into the existing manufacturing processes. Without question, nanotechnology represents a great opportunity to move the partnership between science and manufacturing forward, not unlike cybertechnology propelled the information age into warp speed.
Every “discovery” also brings with it a potential curse, and the same is true of nanotechnology. While the potential benefits of these particles is enormous, the risk to those involved in their production and use may be equally large. Historically, the dangers of chemicals and workplace substances have been discovered as a result of morbidity analysis of exposed workers. The health risk of exposure to asbestos was discovered and understood after shipbuilders because sick and many died from lung disease at alarmingly higher rates than the general public. Hat makers exposed to mercury treated felt, and painters exposed to lead based paint provided information from which the neurotoxicity of those substances was better understood. But the argument could be made that we ought to at least try to move beyond the strategy that coal miners used to test workplace safety. They would put a bird in a cage and take it into the mine. If the bird died, it meant that the air in the shaft was unfit for the workers. Today’s science ought to allow us to treat our workers better than those birds were treated.
The problem is that the science of discovery usually outpaces the attention paid to safety. The theme of mad scientists that runs through movie lore involves scientists who disregard safety to explore the effects of new and unproven chemical substances. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration typically lags behind industry in developing and implementing safety standards for the workplace that protect workers exposed to such chemicals and substances from unreasonable risk. Many businesses concerned almost exclusively with their bottom line profitability have in the past ignored or suppressed concerns about employee safety, treating OSHA as a threat or a nuisance instead of an ally.
That may be changing a bit as we move into the bold future of nanotechnology. The problem is that so little is known about the health impact or risks of nanomaterials. Some nanoparticles exist naturally and we are exposed to them routinely. However, little is known about the specific impact of these naturally occurring elements on human health. Imagine then our lack of knowledge and understanding of the impact and risks associated with artificially produced nanoparticles that are more complex than the natural ones, but still smaller than a virus. When medical science began to understand the virus and the risks associated with viral infections as compared to infection from far larger bacteria, a whole new way of treating diseases emerged. A similar new way of thinking may be required for workplace safety monitoring and risk analysis.
Right now, OSHA and industry lack the equipment in any economically viable and portable form to measure and monitor worker exposure. And to the extent that health impacts may be latent, gradual, cumulative or synergistic, many current workers may be irretrievably compromised from exposure while data is being collected and analyzed. In an age where the technical training and experience of workers in modern manufacturing is more and more important, industry cannot afford to treat its workers as fungible and expendable in the same way that miners were treated in the past. We can only hope that responsible industry representatives will establish partnerships with OSHA, NIH (National Institute of Health) and NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) to speed up the learning curve on what impacts nanomaterial exposure may have on human health.
No comments:
Post a Comment